How to make an editorial comment in a front-page layout …
Not sure how deliberately The Globe juxtaposed an Andrew Scheer profile with a climate-strike march to make a statement about Scheer on the Environment – but it really doesn’t matter. Scheer did that on his own.
In Vancouver, he took that day when a hundred thousand marched on climate to announce money for highway expansion. (Because more lanes means less pollution because that always works.)
And that’s got to be deliberate.
Though the message may be oblique, it’s clear evidence that Scheer discounts climate change whether as a political issue or as reality. He’s basically doing a Harper 2.0 – similar to Stephen Harper’s Arctic tours when the words ‘climate change’ never passed his lips. Harper’s message to other decision-makers: don’t take climate change too seriously. I have no intention of doing anything drastic. You don’t have to either.”
Scheer looks to continue that strategy. Reality might make a difference in Scheer’s indifference, but not mass marches.
Is he, then, an extinctionist?* – the ultimate pragmatist.
I doubt he’s reached the point where extinction of some kind seems so inevitable that it shapes his policy. But I think he believes he can afford to be indifferent now.
So Andrew Scheer is an extinctionist-in-making. Perhaps already made.
*What’s an extinctionist? Here’s my definition:
Leaders and decision-makers who accept extinction – minor or major, local and global – as an acceptable outcome of climate change; and justify it in order to maximize power and benefit.
It’s not that they are so sociopathic they don’t care or will even revel in the apocalyptic. But they are resigned to the inevitability of the threat and believe we are powerless to do anything consequential about it . They therefore have to accept when making decisions that will hasten extinction, particularly for immediate benefit, that that’s okay. Not desired, not expected, but possible. An acceptable outcome to consider.